The overall purpose of Norwegian environmental legislation is to safeguard the natural environment, encompassing all living organisms, wildlife and vegetation. Central objectives include:

• the prevention of pollution and other forms of environmental degradation, including those arising from harmful climate emissions;
• the promotion of sustainable resource management; and
• the advancement of society’s sustainable development in general.

Core policy principles guiding Norwegian environmental legislation include the “polluter pays” principle and the precautionary principle.

Norwegian environmental law is largely derived from, and harmonised with, European Union environmental law, as a consequence of Norway’s participation in the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement, which covers almost all environmental matters.

It follows from the Norwegian Constitution Article 112 that every person has the right to a healthy environment, and that the state has a duty to implement measures which secure this right for present and future generations. Core environmental laws include the following.

Pollution Control Act

The Pollution Control Act sets the framework to prevent and reduce pollution and waste. It establishes a permit system for activities that may cause pollution, assigns liability to the polluter, and regulates waste management and clean-up responsibilities. The Act provides the legal foundation for Norway’s pollution control framework, ensuring that environmental considerations are integrated into industrial, municipal and resource management decisions.

Nature Diversity Act

The purpose of the Nature Diversity Act is to protect biological, geological and landscape diversity and ecological processes through conservation and sustainable use. It applies to the Norwegian land territory, including river systems, and to Norwegian territorial waters. The Act is guided by key principles such as the precautionary principle, ecosystem-based management, and the requirement that decisions affecting nature must be based on scientific knowledge.

Greenhouse Gas Emission Trading Act

The Greenhouse Gas Emission Trading Act establishes the legal framework for Norway’s emissions trading system (ETS), which is linked to the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS). Its main objective is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The EU ETS uses a market-based mechanism, tradeable emission allowances, to achieve emission reductions cost-effectively. A cap on total emissions from the EU ETS sectors is decreasing yearly, ensuring emission reductions. Currently, the following sectors are included in the system:

• industry;
• energy production;
• petroleum sector;
• aviation; and
• maritime sector.

Environmental legislation is primarily administered by the Norwegian government, with the Ministry of Climate and Environment serving as the authority responsible for its implementation and oversight.

Environmental governance in Norway is organised across several administrative levels. The Ministry of Climate and Environment (Klima- og miljødepartementet) holds overall responsibility for environmental policy, legislation, and international co-operation. Under the Ministry, the Norwegian Environment Agency (Miljødirektoratet) implements national environmental policy, enforces regulations on pollution control, biodiversity and climate measures, and administers permits. Other key bodies include the Norwegian Polar Institute, the Norwegian Cultural Heritage Directorate (Riksantikvaren), and the Norwegian Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority, each with specialised mandates. At the regional and local levels, county governors and municipalities play crucial roles in applying environmental laws and managing local environmental issues.

In relation to environmental permits, inspections are generally conducted regularly to ensure compliance with current environmental legislation and requirements. Inspection authority lies with either the Norwegian Environment Agency, the county governors or the municipalities, depending on which public body is responsible for enforcing the specific requirements being inspected.

Several established mechanisms facilitate co-operation between environmental authorities and private actors in Norway. A key instrument is the system of permits and licences under the Pollution Control Act, which requires companies to obtain emission permits from the Norwegian Environment Agency or the county governor. These processes involve close dialogue between businesses and authorities, both during the application phase and through ongoing follow-up, reporting and inspections.

Co-operation also occurs through voluntary agreements and industry initiatives, where authorities and businesses commit to shared environmental objectives, such as emission reductions (eg, the NOx Agreement) or food waste reduction (the Food Waste Agreement).

Furthermore, there are platforms for information exchange and guidance, including digital systems such as “Altinn.no” and “Miljøstatus.no”, as well as regular meetings between industry organisations and environmental authorities. In addition, the Planning and Building Act promotes co-operation in land-use planning, ensuring that both private stakeholders and environmental authorities work together to integrate environmental considerations at an early stage of the decision-making process.

To begin with, the Constitution (Article 112) establishes the right to a healthy environment and the state’s duty to safeguard nature for present and future generations. In addition, a range of laws and regulations safeguard specific aspects of the environment.

The Pollution Control Act (Forurensningsloven) regulates emissions to air, water and soil, requiring permits and preventative measures to minimise pollution. Its fundamental principle is that all pollution is prohibited unless specifically permitted. The Nature Diversity Act (Naturmangfoldloven) ensures the sustainable management of biodiversity and ecosystems, emphasising the precautionary principle and ecosystem-based management. Marine and freshwater resources are further protected under the Marine Resources Act (Havressursloven) and the Water Management Regulations (Vannforskriften), which implement the EU Water Framework Directive. Land-use planning under the Planning and Building Act (Plan- og bygningsloven) integrates environmental considerations into development decisions. Collectively, these legislative frameworks, supported by the oversight of authorities such as the Norwegian Environment Agency (Miljødirektoratet), provide comprehensive protection for environmental assets in Norway.

Breaches of environmental regulations in Norway may give rise to both administrative and criminal sanctions. Below are examples of relevant provisions in key legislative acts.

The Penal Code

Section 240 of the Norwegian Penal Code addresses aggravated environmental crime, providing for imprisonment for up to fifteen years.

Pollution Control Act

Violations of the Pollution Control Act may result in administrative or criminal liability. Administratively, the environment authorities may issue orders for correction and impose coercive fines or administrative penalties. Criminal sanctions are provided in Sections 78–80, which stipulate fines or imprisonment for up to five years.

Greenhouse Gas Emission Trading Act

Pursuant to Section 19, an administrative penalty may be imposed when the required number of emission allowances is not surrendered within the prescribed deadline. The penalty is imposed on an objective basis and amounts to EUR100 per allowance, adjusted in accordance with the European Consumer Price Index, in line with the EU Emissions Trading Directive. Additionally, under Section 21, violations may be subject to fines or imprisonment for up to three months.

The regulatory, permitting and supervisory environmental authorities in Norway possess broad powers to respond to environmental incidents and breaches of environmental legislation or permit conditions. These authorities include:

• the Norwegian Environment Agency (Miljødirektoratet);
• the county governor (Statsforvalteren);
• municipalities; and
• in certain cases, the Ministry of Climate and Environment.

They may issue orders to halt operations, require corrective measures or mandate remediation, according to the Pollution Control Act.

See also 3.2 Breaching Protections.

According to the Pollution Control Act, there is a general prohibition against pollution (Section 7). Pollution is only permitted when expressly authorised, either through general regulations applicable to specific sectors (such as those governing wastewater treatment, asphalt plants or fish processing facilities) or through an individual permit issued pursuant to Section 11 of the Act.

Environmental permits are generally obtained by submitting an application to the competent authority, which may be the Environment Agency (Miljødirektoratet), the county governor (Statsforvalteren) or the municipality, depending on the scale and nature of the activity. The application must include:

• detailed information regarding the planned operation;
• potential environmental impacts;
• proposed mitigation measures; and
• compliance with applicable standards.

The authority will assess the application and often conduct a public consultation.

Permitting decisions may be appealed by the applicant and, in certain cases, by affected third parties. Appeals are generally submitted to a higher administrative authority, such as the Ministry of Climate and Environment, and are governed by the Public Administration Act (Forvaltningsloven). Appeals may concern both the refusal of a permit and the conditions imposed, including operational limitations, monitoring requirements or associated fees. The appeal authority may uphold, modify or overturn the original decision.

Norwegian environmental policy is based on the precautionary principle, the polluter pays principle, and the aim of achieving sustainable development as enshrined in the Pollution Control Act and the Nature Diversity Act. The authorities seek to balance environmental protection with industrial and societal needs through a combination of preventative regulation, permitting systems, supervision and enforcement.

The environmental authorities’ approach emphasises compliance through guidance and co-operation, where inspections, reporting and environmental audits are used to ensure adherence to legal requirements. Administrative measures, such as orders for rectification, coercive fines and administrative penalties are all applied to correct non-compliance. In cases of serious or intentional breaches, matters are referred to the police for criminal prosecution under the Pollution Control Act or the Penal Code.

This enforcement framework reflects a preference for proactive compliance management, using sanctions as a last resort while maintaining a strong deterrent effect.

Environmental permits are issued to a specific entity for the operation of one or more defined activities or installations at a particular geographical location. If a company is sold in a free market transaction, the permit may be transferred to the acquiring company. However, the permit cannot be used at a different site or location.

Any change in ownership must be reported to the competent authorities to ensure that the responsible party for compliance with the permit conditions, best available techniques (BAT) and other applicable legislation is clearly identified.

Breaches of environmental approvals or permits are violations that may result in administrative, criminal and practical consequences. Administratively, the competent authority, such as the Environment Agency (Miljødirektoratet), the county governor (Statsforvalteren) or the municipality, may issue an order to stop or rectify the breach, impose coercive fines or revoke or amend the permit in accordance with the Pollution Control Act (Forurensningsloven).

Criminal sanctions may apply in cases of serious or intentional breaches. Offenders may face fines or imprisonment for up to five years for aggravated offences. The most serious environmental crimes fall under Section 240 of the Penal Code, which provides for imprisonment of up to fifteen years.

Practically, non-compliance can result in suspension of operations, civil liability for remediation costs, difficulties in obtaining future permits or public contracts, and, not least, reputational damage.

Administrative Liability

Authorities may issue orders, injunctions and coercive fines under the Pollution Control Act (Forurensningsloven) to prevent, halt or remedy pollution. Operators are subject to a general duty of care to avoid pollution and to take necessary measures to limit or restore any damage caused. Pollution authorities may impose coercive fines, either as continuous daily penalties or one-off amounts, to ensure compliance with such orders. Public authorities are entitled to recover the costs of implementing remedial or clean-up measures from the responsible party, while private parties may claim reasonable expenses incurred for protective or preventative actions.

Civil Liability

Owners or operators of property, facilities or businesses causing pollution damage are liable without regard to fault under the Pollution Control Act (Forurensningsloven). This strict liability also applies to facility owners for damage caused by sewage systems due to insufficient capacity or inadequate maintenance.

Those who indirectly contribute to pollution damage by delivering goods or services, performing control or supervision are only liable if intent or negligence is shown.

Criminal Liability

Violations of environmental law can lead to criminal sanctions, including fines and imprisonment, under both the Pollution Control Act (Forurensningsloven) and the Penal Code (Straffeloven). The Penal Code (Sections 240–242) criminalises intentional or grossly negligent acts that cause significant harm or risk of harm to the environment. With penalties of up to 15 years’ imprisonment for the most serious offences, the acts include:

• polluting air, water or soil;
• improperly handling waste;
• reducing populations of protected or threatened species; and
• damaging legally protected areas.

Under Norwegian law, a current owner can be held liable for historical contamination even if they did not cause it. The Supreme Court has confirmed that an owner of a polluted property falls within the definition of “the party responsible for the pollution” under the Pollution Control Act (Forurensningsloven), Section 7(2), and the state may claim reimbursement of public clean-up costs from such a “responsible party” under the Pollution Control Act, Section 76(1). Authorities can also impose remediation duties on current operators for historical pollution, including contamination that existed before their operations commenced.

The scope of liability reflects a strict, risk-based approach, ensuring that those with control over a site take responsibility for preventing further harm and implementing remedial measures.

Private contractual arrangements can allocate costs for historical contamination between parties, but such agreements do not affect statutory responsibility under the Pollution Control Act. Without a clear contractual transfer, the original polluting operator often remains liable between private parties, even if the current owner assumes operational control.

For civil liability, the Pollution Control Act (Forurensningsloven), Section 55 establishes the general tort law principle that an injured party is entitled to full compensation for their economic loss. There must, in line with general tort law principles, be a causal connection between the loss and the polluting activity, and the injured party has a duty to mitigate their loss. Strict liability applies to owners and operators, but with key limitations such as proportionality, multiple causation and mitigation provisions. Liability may be reduced or eliminated where other causes have predominantly contributed to the damage. Fault-based liability applies to indirect contributors, while limitation periods generally run for five years, or three to six years in maritime cases.

For administrative liability, proportionality is a central condition. The duty to take or finance remedial measures applies only where these are reasonable in relation to the damage and inconvenience to be avoided. Authorities may exercise discretion to limit or waive claims under the Pollution Control Act, Section 76(3)–(4) if pursuing full liability would be inequitable or disproportionate. For historical pollution, authorities may choose among liable parties, and it may constitute an abuse of authority to target an owner if another party is clearly better placed to act.

Under Norwegian law, corporate entities can be held criminally, administratively and civilly liable for environmental damage or breaches of environmental law.

Under Section 27 of the Penal Code (Straffeloven), companies may incur corporate criminal liability for offences committed in the course of business, including environmental crimes under Sections 240–242, which cover intentional or grossly negligent pollution and serious breaches of environmental regulations. Liability does not require identifying a specific individual offender. Sanctions include fines, confiscation of profits and, in severe cases, suspension of operations.

Administrative measures under the Pollution Control Act (Forurensningsloven), such as orders, injunctions and coercive fines (as described above), can also be directed towards the company.

Civil liability follows the Pollution Control Act, Section 55, which provides for full compensation for economic loss caused by pollution. Liability is generally strict, subject to causation and proportionality limits.

In practice, enforcement typically relies on administrative measures, with criminal sanctions reserved for serious or repeated violations.

The following environmental taxes apply.

• Taxes on greenhouse gas emissions, including:
1. CO₂ tax on emissions from various sectors;
2. CO₂ tax on petroleum activities on the continental shelf;
3. environmental tax on hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs);
4. one-time vehicle tax (calculated CO₂ component); and
5. tax related to the trading of emission allowances.
• Taxes on NOx and sulphur emissions, including:
1. NOx tax;
2. NOx tax on petroleum activities on the continental shelf;
3. sulphur tax; and
4. one-time vehicle tax (calculated NOx component).
• Road use and pollution taxes, addressing noise and local air pollution, including:
1. road use tax on petrol;
2. road use tax on diesel; and
3. lubricating oil tax and related charges.
• Waste-related taxes, including:
1. tax on final waste treatment; and
2. environmental tax on beverage packaging.
• Other environmental taxes, including:
1. tax on environmentally hazardous chemicals (TRI, PER);
2. tax on pesticides; and
3. base tax on mineral oil and similar products.

Companies participating in the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) receive substantially reduced CO₂ tax rates (typically 93–100% reductions) on quota-liable emissions to avoid double regulation, though important exceptions exist for sectors such as petroleum and domestic aviation. Separately, companies that join the environmental agreement administered through the NOₓ Fund receive full exemption from NOₓ tax in exchange for paying into the fund and committing to collective emission reduction targets. These mechanisms are designed to co-ordinate different regulatory instruments rather than to reward demonstrated environmental performance.

Enova, a state-owned enterprise, provides financial support for projects that promote energy efficiency, renewable energy and emission reductions. Similarly, Innovation Norway and the Research Council of Norway offer grants and incentives for green innovation and technology development.

The Norwegian state supports a range of green initiatives, including Northern Lights, a full-scale carbon capture, transport and storage project, and floating offshore wind projects such as Utsira Nord. Support includes direct funding, investment incentives and technology development grants.

Under Norwegian law, shareholders and parent companies are generally not directly liable for environmental damage or breaches of environmental law committed by a subsidiary, based on the principle of limited liability in the Companies Act (Aksjeloven), Sections 1–2.

However, for public law environmental obligations (investigations, clean-up orders and cost recovery), parent companies can be held liable directly under the Pollution Control Act (Forurensningsloven) without piercing the corporate veil, where they have:

• actual control and management of the subsidiary’s operations;
• economic interest in the polluting activity; and
• practical ability to prevent pollution or implement remedial measures.

This liability is based on interpretation of the Pollution Control Act (Forurensningsloven), Sections 7, 51 and 76, which use broad language (“anyone who has, does or sets in motion something that leads to pollution”).

For private law compensation claims under Pollution Control Act (Forurensningsloven), Chapter 8, parent companies generally cannot be held liable unless there is fault-based liability under general tort principles or exceptional circumstances justifying piercing the corporate veil (though no Supreme Court judgment has expressly recognised veil piercing).

Administrative authorities have discretion to choose among multiple responsible parties, and may address parent companies where they exercise effective control or are best placed to ensure compliance. Corporate restructuring, asset stripping or liquidation of subsidiaries does not eliminate parent company liability where they acquired responsibility through merger or continuation of polluting activities.

Environmental requirements are primarily set out in the Pollution Control Act (Forurensningsloven), the Nature Diversity Act (Naturmangfoldloven) and sector-specific regulations. Companies and operators must comply with:

• pollution limits;
• reporting obligations;
• permit conditions; and
• environmental impact assessments.

Enforcement is carried out by the Norwegian Environment Agency (Miljødirektoratet) and other competent authorities through:

• inspections;
• orders;
• coercive fines; and
• in serious cases, criminal sanctions under the Penal Code (Straffeloven) (eg, intentional or grossly negligent pollution).

Public reporting obligations apply to large industrial operators, including annual environmental reports and greenhouse gas emissions reporting.

Social requirements encompass labour, health and human rights obligations under the Working Environment Act (Arbeidsmiljøloven), anti-discrimination laws, and internationally aligned corporate responsibility principles. Companies are expected to implement internal policies, conduct risk assessments, and provide reporting, particularly under the new Norwegian Transparency Act (Åpenhetsloven), which requires disclosure of due diligence related to human rights and fundamental labour rights.

Governance requirements include internal controls, risk management, and compliance frameworks aligned with EU and national sustainability legislation, including the EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the Taxonomy Regulation as implemented in Norway. Reporting is typically annual, through statutory filings, sustainability reports, and disclosures to authorities and stakeholders. Compliance is monitored through regulatory oversight, audits, and the possibility of administrative or civil enforcement.

There is no general statutory requirement for independent environmental audits, but certain sectors have specific reporting and compliance obligations that function as internal or external reviews. Large industrial operators under the Pollution Control Act (Forurensningsloven) must monitor and report emissions, often with verification. Companies in the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) must submit annually verified greenhouse gas reports. Major project permits may require environmental management systems or audits, and the implementation of the EU CSRD mandates ESG reporting for large and listed companies, with independent assurance.

Under Norwegian law, directors and officers can be held personally liable for environmental damage or breaches of environmental law in certain circumstances. Personal liability typically arises where the individual has acted intentionally or negligently (ordinary negligence is sufficient under the Pollution Control Act (Forurensningsloven), or has failed to exercise the required duty of care in supervising the company’s operations. Key sources of liability include the Pollution Control Act, which imposes duties on operators and criminalises violations, and the Penal Code (Straffeloven), Sections 240–242, criminalising intentional or grossly negligent serious environmental crimes.

It is possible for directors and officers to obtain insurance (directors’ and officers’ liability insurance) that covers certain claims, including environmental liability. The Pollution Control Act (Forurensningsloven) allows authorities to require security (which could include insurance) as a permit condition.

Pursuant to the Norwegian Natural Disaster Insurance Act (Naturskadeforsikringsloven), property insured against fire damage is also insured against damage caused by natural disasters, provided the damage is not covered by another insurance policy. This includes damage resulting from landslide, storm, flood, storm surge, tidal wave, meteorite impact, earthquake, or volcanic eruption. It does not, however, include damage to property such as forest, unharvested crops, goods in transit, motor vehicles and trailers, and similar items.

Other types of damage not mentioned in the Act are generally not covered by the definition of natural disaster damage. If there is any doubt as to whether the natural damage falls within the scope of the law, the case may be submitted to the Natural Damage Appeals Board. The Board’s decision is final and cannot be appealed.

Certain sectors or activities, such as companies handling hazardous waste, may be subject to permit conditions requiring financial security, which may include insurance. However, there is no general legal requirement for compulsory environmental insurance for contamination, nuisance or similar environmental damage.

Financial institutions and lenders are generally not liable for environmental damage or breaches of environmental law in Norway unless they carry out, own or exercise actual control over the polluting activity. Under the Pollution Control Act (Forurensningsloven), liability attaches to “the responsible party”, being the party who has, does or initiates the polluting activity. This is normally the owner of the facility causing pollution, but can include lessees with full control or other rights holders. The test is whether the lender has decisive influence over decisions necessary to take measures against pollution. Relevant factors include:

• operational control;
• influence over environmental decisions;
• economic interest in the activity; and
• ability to take necessary measures.

Merely holding security, board representation or contractual approval rights would not meet this threshold. However, actively exercising step-in rights to assume operational management, or appointing directors who exercise day-to-day control over environmental decisions, could create liability.

Indirect contributors are only liable if intent or negligence is proven.

The key protective principle under Norwegian law is to avoid exercising actual control and authority over the borrower’s operations such that the lender has decisive influence over decisions necessary to take measures against pollution. Contractual oversight, monitoring rights and reasonable risk controls are permitted, as parties who contribute indirectly through control or supervision are only liable if intent or negligence is proven. However, step-in rights should be designed and exercised with extreme caution. Actively assuming operational management or day-to-day control over environmental decisions could cause the lender to be classified as a party who “operates, uses or possesses” the polluting activity, triggering strict liability for compensation and public law obligations to investigate and remediate pollution. The assessment is fact-specific and considers the lender’s actual control, economic interest in the activity, and ability to take necessary measures.

Under Norwegian law, civil claims for compensation or other remedies can generally be brought by any party who suffers actual economic loss or damage as a result of environmental harm. The claimant must establish causation between the damage and the activity or omission that caused it, in line with general tort principles and the Pollution Control Act (Forurensningsloven). This includes both direct damage to property and consequential economic losses, provided the losses are reasonably foreseeable.

Under Norwegian law, civil claims generally do not allow punitive or exemplary damages. The system is primarily compensatory, aiming to restore the injured party to the position they would have been in without the harm. Non-economic damages may be awarded for personal injury, partly reflecting societal disapproval, but this is not equivalent to common law punitive damages. Courts focus on restitution, remediation and reasonable expenses, while regulatory fines (eg, under the Pollution Control Act (Forurensningsloven), Section 73) are forward-looking enforcement tools imposed by authorities, not punitive civil awards.

Under Norwegian law, collective redress for environmental-related civil claims is available primarily through gruppesøksmål (group actions) under the Dispute Act (Tvisteloven), which are narrower and more court-gated than many common law class action regimes.

Group actions require court approval and may be brought only where:

• multiple claimants have claims or obligations on the same or substantially similar factual and legal basis;
• the claims can otherwise be handled with the same court composition and mainly the same procedural rules;
• group procedure is the best treatment method; and
• there is a basis to appoint an adequate group representative.

The first “climate case” concerned whether granting petroleum exploration licences in the Barents Sea breached the Constitution’s environmental clause (Section 112). The Supreme Court held in 2020 that the decision did not violate the Constitution, but confirmed that Section 112 provides substantive environmental rights. The applicants appealed to the European Court of Human Rights, which issued its judgment in autumn 2025. The Court did not find a violation, but underlined that states must ensure thorough climate impact assessments in licensing decisions.

A second key case concerns whether environmental impact assessments (EIAs) must include emissions from the combustion of petroleum at the Plan for Development and Operation (PUD) stage. An environmental NGO won in the District Court, and the EFTA Court later supported that legal interpretation. The case has been heard by the Court of Appeal, and a judgment is awaited.

A third ongoing case is brought by the Sámi Parliament against the Ministry of Energy regarding the electrification of the LNG facility at Hammerfest, arguing insufficient consultation with Sámi interests and inadequate EIA. The ruling is expected to clarify consultation and assessment requirements in major industrial projects.

Under Norwegian contract law, parties may allocate environmental liability and agree on indemnities between themselves. However, there are important limits.

• Private agreements cannot limit statutory obligations. Liability for breaches remains with the legally responsible operator, and regulators are not bound by indemnity clauses. Such agreements only govern recourse between the parties and do not alter primary liability.
• Enforceability depends on context. Between sophisticated commercial parties, negotiated liability limitations are generally upheld. However, clauses excluding liability for intentional misconduct or gross negligence by management may be set aside under the Norwegian Contract Act (Avtaleloven), Section 36 or general principles if they would lead to unreasonable results.
• Where strict environmental liability applies (eg, under the Pollution Control Act), the operator or property owner remains externally liable regardless of any internal allocation. Contractual indemnities only regulate cost-sharing between the parties and do not affect the public law duty to remedy damage or the authorities’ right to enforce against the legally responsible party.

The Norwegian Pollution Act (Forurensningsloven) incorporates a comprehensive prohibition against pollution, encompassing contaminated land. Section 7 of the Act explicitly prohibits any individual from engaging in actions or activities that could pose a risk of pollution, except when authorised under Section 8 or 9, or permitted by a decision outlined in Section 11. In cases where there is an imminent threat of pollution contrary to the Act, those responsible for the potential pollution must undertake measures to prevent its occurrence. In instances where pollution has already transpired, the parties accountable for the pollution are obligated to initiate actions to cease, eliminate or mitigate its effects.

Moreover, there exists a duty to mitigate any resultant damage stemming from the pollution. The authority overseeing pollution control holds the power to issue directives mandating those responsible for the pollution to execute necessary measures. These measures may include further investigations, pollution removal or actions to mitigate its impact. However, any decisions made by the authorities must maintain reasonable proportionality in relation to the anticipated damage to be averted.

However, the Act lacks precise delineation regarding the designation of responsibility for historical pollution. This ambiguity is particularly challenging to ascertain when the pollution incidents occurred many years in the past. Consequently, the determination of liability for historical pollution has evolved over time, influenced by judicial precedents and interpretations of the Act, notably within legal theory and by regulatory pollution control entities.

When determining liability for pollution in accordance with the Norwegian Pollution Act (Forurensningsloven), the polluter pays principle governs. This entails that the party responsible for the pollution bears the financial responsibility. However, in certain instances wherein identifying the polluter becomes unfeasible, such as when the polluter no longer exists or lacks financial capacity, among other scenarios, the onus often falls upon the property owner.

Additionally, individuals in possession of a contaminated property can also incur liability. This circumstance commonly involves entities leasing or renting a property. The recognition that parties other than the owner may bear responsibility for pollution was articulated in a ruling by the Supreme Court in 2010 (the “Hempel case”, Rt 2010 p 306). The Hempel case underscores the potential for a parent company to assume liability for ground pollution associated with a property under the control of its subsidiary.

The person or company that caused the pollution remains legally responsible for ensuring remediation, even if the practical work is carried out by another party. In practice, delegation often occurs through contractual arrangements: for example, between a landowner, developer or specialist remediation contractor. Such agreements can assign the execution of investigation and clean-up tasks, but the public-law obligation to restore the site ultimately remains with the person or company deemed responsible by the authorities.

When multiple parties have contributed to contamination, liability is determined under the Pollution Control Act, which applies the polluter pays principle. Each polluter is responsible for ensuring that pollution is prevented and properly remediated. In practice, the authorities have broad discretion to require any one of the responsible parties to undertake or finance the entire clean-up, regardless of the extent of their individual contribution.

In practice, the environment authorities will assess each party’s degree of responsibility, considering factors such as the extent, timing and nature of their activities, as well as their ability to influence or prevent pollution. After remediation, parties can seek reimbursement or apportionment among themselves through civil claims, based on their respective contributions.

In Norway, locus standi in environmental matters is governed primarily by the Dispute Act (Tvisteloven). A person or organisation must have a legal interest (rettslig interesse) in the case to bring proceedings.

This generally means that individuals or entities directly affected by contamination, such as neighbouring landowners, property users, or those suffering damage to health, property or economic interests, have legal standing.

Additionally, Norway recognises the standing of environmental organisations (NGOs) in certain cases. Thus, both private parties with a direct, concrete interest and qualified environmental organisations can have locus standi in contamination cases, depending on the nature and impact of the pollution.

When an incident occurs, the responsible party must immediately notify the relevant authorities (such as the police), as mandated by the Pollution Control Act (Forurensningsloven). The authorities will assess the severity and potential impact of the event and decide whether a full investigation is necessary. Investigators will:

• secure the site;
• collect evidence;
• interview involved parties; and
• analyse technical, organisational and regulatory factors contributing to the accident.

The polluter has specific obligations under the Act, including:

• reporting the incident;
• taking immediate measures to limit pollution; and
• covering costs associated with remediation.

The Climate Change Act (Klimaloven) provides a legally binding structure for achieving carbon neutrality by 2050 and sets interim five-yearly targets, requiring that national budgets and policies are aligned with these goals. Further, the Pollution Control Act (Forurensningsloven) obliges polluters to prevent, limit and remediate environmental damage, including emissions affecting the climate. Norway also implements sectoral legislation, such as the Petroleum Act, Planning and Building Act, and Transport Act, integrating climate considerations into energy, infrastructure and land-use decisions.

Norway is fully participating in the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), which applies to the largest emission sources within Norwegian manufacturing industries, the petroleum industry, aviation and shipping through the European Economic Area (EEA). The cap, or number of emission allowances in the system, is being gradually reduced to achieve a reduction of 62% in emissions in 2030 compared with 2005. This is an overall reduction for all installations covered by the EU ETS. Norway will also participate in the EU’s separate emissions trading system ETS2 for CO₂ emissions from fuel combustion in buildings, road transport and additional sectors (mainly small industry not covered by the existing EU ETS).

To complement legal measures, Norway promotes renewable energy, electrification of transport, carbon capture and storage, and other low-emission technologies. Carbon taxes and emissions trading create economic incentives for emission reductions. National policies are further guided by international commitments under the Paris Agreement (see 13.2 Targets to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions).

The document “Climate Status and Plan” summarises the government’s climate policy, and serves as the government’s annual report on the information required by the Climate Change Act.

Norway’s NDCs

Norway’s climate policy is based on the objective of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement. Norway has several climate targets, both under the Paris Agreement and within a domestic context, forming the basis for policies and measures.

Norway’s nationally determined contribution (NDC) is to reduce emissions by at least 55% by 2030 compared to 1990. This NDC target is included in the Norwegian Climate Change Act. It is also a target to become a low-emission society by 2050 and reduce emissions by 90–95% compared to 1990. This target is also included in the Norwegian Climate Change Act. Recently, Norway also submitted its NDC for 2035 under the Paris Agreement, which is to reduce emissions by at least 70–75% compared to 1990 levels.

Targets Under the EU Co-Operation Agreement

Norway entered into an agreement with the EU in 2019 to co-operate to fulfil their respective climate targets for 2030. Under the agreement, Norway will take part in EU climate legislation from 2021 to 2030. The EU’s climate policy has three main pillars. The first pillar of EU’s climate policy consists of EU ETS. The second pillar of EU climate policy deals with emissions not covered by the EU ETS, but by the effort sharing regulation (ESR), mainly covering emissions from transport, agriculture, buildings and waste. Norway’s current target for the ESR emissions under its agreement with the EU is a 40% reduction by 2030 compared with the 2005 level, however this target might be revised (reinforced). The third pillar of EU climate policy covers the LULUCF sector, addressing human-caused greenhouse gas emissions and removals from land use, land-use change and forestry.

The key Norwegian laws relating to asbestos and PCBs are as follows:

• Working Environment Act (Arbeidsmiljøloven);
• Regulation on Action Values and Limit Values (Forskrift om tiltaks- og grenseverdier);
• Regulation on the Performance of Work (Forskrif om utførelse av arbeid);
• Product Regulation (Produktforskriften); and
• REACH Regulation (REACH-forskriften).

Generally, the use and handling of asbestos and asbestos-containing materials are prohibited, and any business undertaking work involving asbestos must obtain a permit from the Norwegian Labour Inspection Authority.

The key Norwegian legislation for waste management is as follows:

• Pollution Control Act (Forurensningsloven);
• Regulation relating to Waste (Avfallsforskriften);
• Pollution Regulation (Forurensningsforskriften); and
• Product Control Act (Produktkontrolloven).

The waste hierarchy is key in these legislations, prioritising reduction, reuse and recycling over disposal. Regarding responsibility, municipalities are responsible for the management of household waste, whereas undertakings are required to manage their own waste in a responsible manner and in accordance with applicable legal provisions.

Generally, the liability of producers and consignors ceases upon delivery of the waste to an approved facility or to a third party with the necessary permits. However, transferring waste does not automatically absolve the original holder of responsibility, as due diligence must be exercised. Under Section 28 of the Pollution Control Act (Forurensningsloven), a party responsible for improper waste handling may be held liable for environmental damage, regardless of transfer. Also, if waste is delivered to an unauthorised recipient, or if the consignor knew or should have known that the recipient would not comply with regulations, the original producer remains responsible.

There is no general requirement for all producers to design products for disassembly or reassembly. However, some product-specific regulations require such considerations to facilitate waste management, recycling and hazardous substance removal. Producer responsibility for take-back, recovery, recycling or proper disposal applies to certain product categories, such as electrical and electronic equipment, batteries, and packaging.

As Norway is a party to the EEA Agreement, relevant EU legislation in this area is being incorporated into Norwegian law. The Norwegian Sustainable Products Act (Bærekraftige produkter-loven) serves as an enabling statute for issuing regulations to implement EU circular economy legislation, imposing, for example, sustainability requirements on the design, composition, content and characteristics of products.

Waste operations handling waste that may result in pollution must obtain the necessary permits. Apart from specific permit conditions, operators must ensure proper handling to protect health and the environment, as well as comply with general requirements regarding storage, treatment, documentation and reporting.

The consequences of breaching such obligations vary, depending on the gravity of the breach, and may include:

• administrative sanctions and enforcement fees;
• prosecution; and/or
• imprisonment.

Operators may also be liable for costs related to pollution, clean-up, or harm to third parties.

Environmental issues must be disclosed under several laws, primarily the following:

• Accounting Act (Regnskapsloven);
• Transparency Act (Åpenhetsloven); and
• Pollution Control Act (Forurensningsloven).

Companies must provide environmental information to regulators (such as the Environment Agency) and, upon request, to the public under the Environmental Information Act (Miljøinformasjonsloven), which ensures transparency and public access to environmental data.

The EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) is implemented in Norwegian legislation, primarily through the Accounting Act. Following the same timeline as EU countries, sustainability reporting is being introduced gradually. Starting from the financial year 2024, certain large public entities are required to report. The simplifications according to the Omnibus proposal will apply to Norway.

Failure to disclose or providing incomplete information can lead to administrative sanctions, fines or enforcement actions, as well as reputational and investor trust damage.

The public has a broad right to access environmental information under the Environmental Information Act (Miljøinformasjonsloven), which implements the Aarhus Convention. Any person may request environmental information from public authorities. This includes, eg, ministries, municipalities, agencies, and state-owned enterprises.

Requests can only be refused on limited grounds, and refusals must be justified. Non-compliance may lead to administrative complaints, appeals, or oversight by the Parliamentary Ombudsman.

Companies falling within the scope of EU’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), which is implemented in Norway, must report on sustainability and ESG factors in their annual report.

Green financing agreements are governed mainly through the financial market framework implementing EU sustainable finance regulations, as Norway is part of the European Economic Area (EEA). The key instruments include:

• EU Taxonomy Regulation;
• Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR); and
• requirements under the EU Green Bond Standard.

These establish criteria for environmentally sustainable economic activities and transparency obligations for financial institutions and issuers of green financial products.

Supervision and enforcement are carried out by the Financial Supervisory Authority of Norway (Finanstilsynet), which oversees compliance by banks, insurers, investment firms and issuers.

Environmental due diligence is a standard part of M&A, finance and property transactions in Norway. The due diligence typically includes an evaluation of a target company’s environmental risks and liabilities. Typical focus areas include:

• past and potential contamination;
• regulatory compliance; and
• any expected future environmental costs.

A purchaser of shares or assets will often conduct thorough investigations into the target’s environmental compliance, verify the existence of all necessary permits and licences, and examine any history of contamination or breaches of environmental laws and regulations. The due diligence includes:

• examining company documents;
• reviewing third-party environmental audits; and
• assessing any current or potential regulatory enforcement actions.

Under Norwegian law, sellers in M&A transactions do not have an automatic statutory duty to voluntarily disclose environmental information to purchasers. However, failure to disclose or misrepresentation of material environmental facts may give rise to liability for misrepresentation or breach of contract. Companies are subject to environmental disclosure obligations under the Norwegian Accounting Act (Regnskapsloven), which has incorporated the EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD). Following the same timeline as EU countries, sustainability reporting is being introduced gradually according to the CSRD. Starting from the financial year 2024, certain large public entities are required to report. In addition, sector-specific legislation such as the Norwegian Sale of Property Act (Avhendingsloven) require disclosure if environmental issues could materially affect the property’s value. Sellers may also be legally required to provide environmental documentation to regulatory authorities, which will typically become part of the transaction’s disclosure materials.

The most common environmental legal issues encountered in Norwegian transactions include confirming that the target business holds all required environmental permits and licences from public authorities and identifying any ground contamination. Both issues can pose considerable financial risks, as environmental permits and licences are often a prerequisite for the right to operate, and ground contamination may result in liability for costs related to environmental remediation. In transactions involving publicly listed companies with reporting obligations, there may also be risks related to misleading sustainability and environmental reporting.